People v. Fotu CA1/5

Filed 3/28/25 P. v. Fotu CA1/5 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 8.1115(b). This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION FIVE

THE PEOPLE, A168984 Plaintiff and Respondent, v. (San Francisco County Super. Ct. Nos. SCN23338501, FASI FOTU, CRI20006837) Defendant and Appellant.

Fasi Fotu (appellant) appeals his conviction, following a jury trial, of murder (Pen. Code, § 187, subd. (a))1 and being a felon in possession of a firearm (§ 29800, subd. (a)(1)). His sole contention on appeal is that the trial court abused its discretion in denying his motion for mistrial. We affirm. BACKGROUND On February 21, 2020, at approximately 4:00 p.m., officers responded to a shooting and found the victim unresponsive in the driver’s seat of a car. Efforts to resuscitate him were unsuccessful. The cause of death was a gunshot wound to the back.

1 All undesignated statutory references are to the Penal Code.

1

Officers collected video surveillance footage from various locations around the time of the shooting. The videos showed a man shooting the victim, then leaving the scene in a silver Mustang with a California license plate beginning with “4T.” Video showed the silver Mustang subsequently stopping at an address on Kirkwood Road, where the man got out. A few days later, officers identified a silver Mustang matching the car in the surveillance video, which DMV records showed was registered to appellant at the same Kirkwood Road address. When appellant was subsequently arrested at an apartment at a different location, officers found a pair of black Air Jordan shoes similar to ones worn by the shooter in the video. Text messages on appellant’s cell phone indicated he was in a romantic relationship with Sarina B. When police interviewed Sarina, they showed her portions of the surveillance video footage, which she admitted showed her at the scene of the shooting.2 Later that same day, Sarina spoke by phone to appellant, who was in jail, and told him, “I’ll be in custody by next week. Or before.” When appellant responded, “What? That’s crazy,” Sarina said, “Video. Cameras. Everything”; “Clear as day. Everything”; “All the way up to Kirkwood”; “All the way. All the way to Kirkwood.” When appellant warned, “You know these ‘phones,’ right,” Sarina responded, “Well, how else am I gonna tell you?” The jury found appellant guilty of first degree murder (§ 187, subd. (a)) and found true an allegation that he personally and intentionally discharged a firearm causing death (§ 12022.53, subd. (d)), and also found him guilty of being a felon in possession of a firearm (§ 29800, subd. (a)(1)). The court sentenced appellant to an aggregate prison term of 50 years to life.